Penn officials consider boosting paving budget
Penn Township commissioners might increase their paving budget by 56 percent as they consider a budget revision that would provide almost $1.4 million to resurface as many as 13 roads.
Officials have discussed the possibility of adding $500,000 from the general fund to the $892,000 they originally budgeted for paving. Commissioners briefly considered borrowing $3 million for road work but shelved that idea when they determined they didn't have a definite plan for how to spend the money this year.
Township engineer Don Black is working on the specifications to solicit bids for paving portions of Cypress Court; Fourteenth Street; Autumn, Cherry, Long and Shady drives; and Boyd, Gombach, Gongaware, Holland, Saunders Station, Slack and Waugaman roads.
Commissioners said the price of the bids will determine which roads they choose to pave this year.
Black has told commissioners that he considers Waugaman to be a priority because its condition deteriorated noticeably during the winter. The section of the road between Harrison City-Export Road and Raymaley Road was paved last in 2002, and the remainder was completed in 2004, Black said.
Depending on the extent of the potential work on Waugaman, officials said, they might have to close it to through traffic.
But Commissioner Paul Wersing noted that a full excavation and reclamation of the road could be “a disaster” because of the construction on nearby Harrison City-Export Road.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8671, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.